In the Interest of I.H., J.F., and S.F., Minor Children, K.F., Mother ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1318
Filed September 23, 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF I.H., J.F., AND S.F.,
Minor Children,
K.F., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Franklin County, Peter B. Newell,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Larry W. Johnson of Walters & Johnson, Iowa Falls, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, and Brent Symens, County Attorney, for appellee State.
Randy D. Johansen, Sheffield, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
children.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J, and Potterfield and McDonald, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, Judge.
A mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her
children, I.H., born in 2002;1 J.F., born in 2006; and S.F., born in 2008.2 The
children were removed from the mother’s custody in January 2014 as a result of
her failure to provide proper supervision of her children and their exposure to
harm. Because we find the State made reasonable efforts to reunify this family,
we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(f) (2015).
I. Background Facts.
About November 10, 2012, the mother left the younger two children (ages
six and four) home alone in the early morning hours while she traveled out of
town to see an ex-boyfriend. She called her mother about 5 a.m. to tell her the
children were at home alone. The oldest child was staying with maternal
grandmother at the time. A child abuse assessment was conducted and resulted
in a finding the mother had denied the children critical care. During that
assessment, it was learned there were concerns about the mother’s mental
health and the children’s excessive absences from school. The department of
human services (DHS) began providing services to the family.
In April 2013, another child abuse assessment was conducted after the
youngest child was discovered unsupervised and attempting to cross a highway
on a bicycle. Again there was a finding of denial of critical care.
1
The father of I.H. moved out of state some time ago. His parental rights were
terminated pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b) and he has not appealed.
2
The father of J.F. and S.F. consented to the termination of his parental rights and he is
not involved in this appeal.
3
The children were adjudicated children in need of assistance (CINA) on
May 20, 2013. At the time of the adjudication hearing on April 29, the mother
and children were living with the mother’s parents. The mother was unemployed.
She testified at the adjudication hearing that she had been diagnosed with major
depression and was taking Prozac and meeting with a therapist. She also
testified that regarding the incident where she left the children alone, she had
been taking Ambien and did not remember what happened. The court ordered
the mother to participate in a mental health evaluation and follow any
recommendations for treatment. The children were also ordered to participate in
counseling.3 Following the CINA adjudication, Family Safety, Risk, and
Permanency services (FSRP) continued to be offered. In addition, Monarch
Therapy Services came to the home weekly to provide Behavioral Health
Intervention Services (BHIS) to the children.
On January 21, 2014, the youngest child again was found unsupervised
near a roadway. The temperature was six degrees and the child was not
adequately clothed. His feet and hands were wet, and he was so cold he was
unable to speak to the teacher who found him. On January 22, 2014, an
application for an ex parte order of temporary removal asserted,
On 1/22/14 DHS attempted to speak with [the mother] regarding
these concerns. [The mother] became upset, yelling hysterically
and using profanity. The situation escalated when [I.H.] threw a
chair and pushed his grandmother to try to leave the home. [The
mother] refused to cooperate and denied the allegation with [S.F.]
There are ongoing concerns with [the mother’s] mental health and
lack of treatment. The children have missed 50 days or more of
school. This is the third incident of denial of critical care for
supervision since services began.
3
J.F. had been diagnosed with disruptive behavior disorder.
4
The children were removed from the mother’s care and placed in foster
care. That removal was confirmed by an order dated February 10, 2014, in
which the court found the children in “imminent danger of harm as a result of lack
of supervision being provided by the mother.” Services were to continue.
A May 19, 2014 review order noted the mother “has not followed through
with participating in therapy,” had been difficult to communicate with regarding
her children’s medical and dental needs,4 and had “continued to demonstrate
that she has difficulty coping with her own mental health issues.” The court
ordered that FSRP and BHIS services continue and that the mother participate in
any recommended mental health treatment.
The mother has sought and received rental assistance and case
management services from Bridge of Hope.5 A September 8 report from that
organization noted the mother had been unable to refill prescribed mental health
prescriptions for a variety of reasons and had struggled with her emotional
stability, summarizing:
As reported in August, [the mother] continued to have great
difficulty in managing her emotions which has been observed to be
the most significant barrier in her progress. All aspects of the
success in the Bridge of Hope program are directly contingent on
her emotional stability. It is believed that if [the mother’s] emotional
well-being can be achieved and maintained that she will be able to
demonstrate progress and move forward on her goals.
4
The court wrote that the mother informed S.F. not to take medication prescribed for his
bed-wetting “because she did not approve of it.”
5
On September 8, 2014, the organization filed a report, which states it “provides rental
assistance and case management services to single women and their children in
achieving family stability . . . through job training, employment and budgeting, life-
changing friendships, increased self-esteem, and growth in the areas of holistic living.”
The organization develops an individualized case plan with each family.
5
It was also noted that the mother had seen a psychiatrist on August 26 and had
her medications adjusted.
A September 8, 2014 review order related the following:
The court received a report from the Department of Human
Services dated August 26th, 2014. The court advised that [the
mother] has had difficulties during visits regulating her emotions.
During a family team meeting, [the mother] felt overwhelmed and
had to walk out. During a meeting on August 19th, 2014, [the
mother] again lost her temper and used profanity towards the
service provider. She later threatened to kill herself with a knife.
[The mother] was inappropriate with [J.F.] during a phone call on
the 19th of August. After the conclusion of today’s hearing, [the
mother] became upset and stormed out of the courtroom.
The mother was again ordered to participate in recommended mental health
treatment.
Another review hearing was held on December 8, 2014. The review order
continued placement of the children outside the home. The court stated the
mother continued to reside with her parents and participate in the Bridge of Hope
program. The review order observed DHS had reported that during a November
4 visit, the mother told two of her children she was going to kill herself. However,
the mother denied threatening self-harm. The court noted visits “are chaotic
because the children do not respect [the mother’s] authority or her rules” and
further that the mother “struggles to demonstrate consistency in routine, rules
and consequences” and “continues to demonstrate difficulty regulating her
emotions.”
A permanency hearing was held on February 16, 2015, at which it was
reported the mother was not currently participating in any individual mental health
therapy though diagnosed with general anxiety disorder, major depressive
6
disorder, and parent/child problems. “[V]isits continue to be problematic.” The
State indicated it intended to file a petition to terminate the mother’s rights. The
mother sought to continue the permanency hearing and obtain further time to
have the children returned to her. The court wrote:
The court personally addressed [the mother] and advised her that
in order for the children to be returned to her care, custody and
control, she would have to participate in individual mental health
treatment. She would be required to show during visitation that she
could regulate her emotions and provide consistent discipline and
supervision of these children. [She] would also have to establish
some financial stability.
The court also found DHS “has made reasonable efforts to return these children
to the care, custody and control of their mother,” to “finalize a permanency plan,”
and “to achieve the permanency goal.”
In a Foster Care Review Board report dated April 2, 2015, the DHS worker
reported that the mother asked her mental health provider for family therapy, but
the “therapist stated that they are not anywhere near ready to begin family
therapy at this time.”
On April 8, 2015, a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights was
filed. On June 8, the mother requested the termination hearing be continued and
she be granted an additional six months to effectuate reunification. However, the
termination hearing was held on June 18 and, on July 20, the juvenile court
terminated the mother’s parental rights. She now appeals.
II. Scope and Standard of Review.
Our review of termination decisions is de novo. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33,
40 (Iowa 2010). We give weight to the juvenile court’s findings, especially
assessing witness credibility, although we are not bound by them. In re D.W.,
7
791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). An order terminating parental rights will be
upheld if there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination under
section 232.116 (2015). Id. Evidence is “clear and convincing” when there are
no serious or substantial doubts as to the correctness of the conclusions of law
drawn from the evidence. Id.
III. Discussion.
Review of a termination order is a three-step analysis. In re P.L., 778
N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa 2010). First, we determine “if a ground for termination
exists under section 232.116(1).” Id. Second, we determine whether termination
is in the child’s best interests as described section 232.116(2). See id. Lastly,
we consider whether the mitigating factors enumerated in section 232.116(3)
persuade us not to terminate the parent’s rights. See id.
The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(f). That section allows the termination of parental rights
if a child four years of age or older has been adjudicated a CINA, has been out of
the parent’s custody for at least twelve of the last eighteen months or the
previous twelve consecutive months, and cannot be returned to the parent’s
custody at the present time. Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f). The mother does not
contest that the children are all over the age of four, have been adjudicated
CINA, have been out of their mother’s custody for the requisite period (since
January 22, 2014), and could not be returned to her care at the time of the
termination proceeding. However, the mother asserts on appeal that the State
failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify her with her children. See In re C.B.,
611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000) (“The State must show reasonable efforts as a
8
part of its ultimate proof the child cannot be safely returned to the care of a
parent.”).
Our laws relating to child welfare require DHS
to “make every reasonable effort to return the child to the child’s
home as quickly as possible consistent with the best interests of the
child.” Iowa Code § 232.102(7); see also In re M.B., 553 N.W.2d
343, 345 (Iowa Ct. App.1996); In re A.Y.H., 508 N.W.2d 92, 95
(Iowa Ct. App.1993). The concept covers both the efforts to
prevent and eliminate the need for removal. Iowa Code
§ 232.102(10)(a). The focus is on services to improve parenting.
In re T.A.L., 505 N.W.2d 480, 485 (Iowa 1993). However, it also
includes visitation designed to facilitate reunification while providing
adequate protection for the child. M.B., 553 N.W.2d at 345.
Id.
The mother contends she has made strides toward financial and housing
stability. She argues the State has failed to provide semi-supervised or
unsupervised contact with the mother to allow her to demonstrate her progress
and show she is capable of adequately supervising the children. She disputes
the court’s findings that she needs mental health therapy.
After the children were removed from the mother’s custody, the family
continued to receive services, including FSRP and supervised visits with the
children. In October 2014, the mother was having two semi-supervised visits
with the children per week. However, on November 6, 2014, the oldest child
informed his mother he did not wish to live with her and the mother told the
younger two children she wanted to kill herself. Visits were again fully
supervised thereafter. Services have been offered to the mother for more than
two years. The mother has not accepted responsibility for her lack of progress
toward reunification.. She is resistant to parenting suggestions. In January 2015,
9
after failing to show for several appointments, the mother participated in a mental
health evaluation. She was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder, major
depressive disorder, and a parent-child relational problem. It was recommended
that she participate in individual therapy for a time before then participating in
family therapy. The mother is prescribed mental health medications (Prozac and
Wellbutrin) but failed to attend medication follow-up appointments in April and
May 2015. The mother is not participating in mental health therapy consistently,
asserting she is not in need of mental health treatment. When angry, the mother
has a history of a lack of self-control—she has walked out of court hearings and
family team meetings. In May 2015, she was charged with assaulting her own
mother over a disagreement about a television. This is not a picture that conveys
confidence in the mother’s ability to parent her children safely.
“While we recognize the law requires a ‘full measure of patience with
troubled parents who attempt to remedy a lack of parenting skills,’ Iowa has built
this patience into the statutory scheme of Iowa Code chapter 232.” Id. at 494
(citation omitted). “The crucial days of childhood cannot be suspended while
parents experiment with ways to face up to their own problems.” In re A.C., 415
N.W.2d 609, 613 (Iowa 1987). The legislature incorporated a twelve-month
limitation for children in need of assistance aged four and up. See Iowa Code
§ 232,116(1)(f). “The purpose of these limitations ‘is to prevent children from
being perpetually kept in foster care and to see that some type of permanent
situation is provided for the children.’” C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 494. “Once the
limitation period lapses, termination proceedings must be viewed with a sense of
urgency.” Id. As our courts have noted before, “insight for the determination of
10
the child’s long-range best interests can be gleaned from ‘evidence of the
parent’s past performance for that performance may be indicative of the quality of
the future care that parent is capable of providing.’” Id. (quoting In re Dameron,
306 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa 1981)).
Each child was behind academically upon arriving at foster care. They
have suffered emotionally from their mother’s neglect. The children have been
provided mental health services and extra educational assistance. While we
acknowledge there is a bond between the mother and children, the children are
thriving in their current placements; they need and deserve permanency. Under
the circumstances presented, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental
rights.
AFFIRMED.